On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:25:56 -0700, you wrote: >I'm not sure if this will even be a valid comparison, so your feedback >and initial numbers are appreciated. > >Please reply with your data as follows
(v1.1 without the DROP TABLE TEST1 statement): sqlite 3.6.0 running on Acer Aspire 9423 under "MS Windows Vista 32bit on Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 1.66GHz, 667 MHz FSB, 2GB DDR2 RAM, Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00 SATA 5400RPM with 8MB buffer, write caching enabled" 0|performance.txt,v 1.1|1.0|0|0.0K Rows/Second 1|Trivial Inserts|31.41|10077696|321.0K Rows/Second 2|Trivial Selects|2.06|10077696|4887.0K Rows/Second 3|Trivial Updates|142.87|10077696|71.0K Rows/Second 4|Trivial Deletes|41.39|10077696|243.0K Rows/Second 5|Insert with calculations|61.81|10077696|163.0K Rows/Second 6|Updates with calculations and longer rows|383.63|10077696|26.0K Rows/Second I might be able to squeeze more performance out of this box. Hint: For a genuinely level playing field you'd have to use more PRAGMAs, like page size and cache size. Defaults might be different in different environments. -- ( Kees Nuyt ) c[_] _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
